Choice of support forums

On 04.1.2015 г. 00:26, Les Cargill wrote:
> Don Y wrote:
>> On 1/3/2015 12:27 PM, Lanarcam wrote:
>>
>>> A few thoughts:
>>>
>>> Usenet gives more freedom and with that come advantages
>>> and disadvantages. There is a need for self-discipline,
>>> for respect of others based on their merits, for the
>>> search of the truth by debate and not that of victory
>>> by all means.
>>
>> Yes.  So, folks intent on the venue to exchange information
>> are left with a crappier S/N.
>>
>>> Usenet was born in another time when only a limited
>>> number of people could participate. There was selection
>>> based on education. All that has changed now, the Internet
>>> is everywhere for everybody. We could say that it has
>>> moved from the universities to the street.
>>>
>>> Corporate forums are a response, moderation prevents
>>> chaos but your freedom is restricted. You become
>>> dependant on an organisation that you don't control,
>>> you lose your independance. You lose for instance the
>>> right to criticize that organisation.
>>
>> Yes, as well.  The moderation tends to get a bit more heavy-handed;
>> BOfH-ish.
>>
>> OTOH, you can get "moderation" without corporate sponsorship.
>> But, the big (potential) win of corporate involvement is the
>> presence of "experts", hopefully (unless the firm assigns the
>> newbies to the task of "support")
>>
>> I see support "venues" (trying to avoid conflicting with "forum")
>> as having several different characteristics that drive their
>> overall utility.  In no particular order (some of these rely
>> on others -- but, IMO, merit being addressed explicitly):
>>
>> - Technology
>>    How is the venue implemented (mailing lists, web pages, SMS services,
>> etc.)?
>>    This has direct impact on many of the other issues (that follow)
>
> NNTP is vastly superior to the rest for this.
>
>> - Accessibility
>>    How readily can the content can be accessed (devices, media, etc.)?
>>    And, how well can it be *searched* for applicable content?
>
> So use NNTP over port 80.
>
>> - Push vs Pull
>>    Does the content come to you or do you go to it?  Mailing lists
>> being an
>>    example of the former; USENET the latter.
>
> Pull is good.
>
>> - Privacy
>>    How much privacy does the venue present its participants?  Do you have
>>    any idea/control as to who is "seeing" your posted content?  Can you
>>    limit your exposure?
>
> Ha! Privacy is an absolute illusion.
>
>> - "Richness" of content
>>    What sorts of media are supported?  E.g., USENET is effectively text
>> only
>>    while most "portal forums" support at least limited types of
>> multimedia.
>
> Very bad. Text is good. Multimedia is a threat vector medium at the very
> least.
>
> NNTP coupled with webpages should be enough.
>
>> - Focus
>>    Is there an "effective" charter governing the venue's usage?  Or, does
>>    the content (topic and quality) wander aimlessly?
>
> Doesn't matter. Focus is also overrated.
>
>> - Control
>>    How is access controlled?  Content?  Is any form of moderation in
>> force
>>    and, if so, how (specific moderators, distributed moderation, etc.)?
>
> There should be total anarchy. Control is an illusion ( unless
> all the poles are on the unit circle ).
>
>> - Exploitability
>>    How susceptible is the venue to abuse (spam, etc.)?  How vulnerable
>> are the
>>    participants to that (unwanted) abuse?
>
> Who cares? Become adept at filtering.
>
>> - Cost
>>    Is there a cost associated with posting/reading content?  To
>> maintaining
>>    the service?
>
> Pay for your NNTP link, then stop worrying. I feel for people trying to
> monetize fora, but not too much.
>
>> - "Value"
>>    (Bad choice of terms)  Are the right people drawn to the venue to
>> address
>>    the subject matter covered in the charter?  (note that this applies to
>>    encouraging the participation of "experts" as well as NOT
>> discouraging the
>>    participation of neophytes)
>>
>
> The best thing a neophyte can do is learn to ask good questions.
>
>> I can go on, but I think this gives an indication of how multifaceted the
>> decision is.
>
> Gated communities are no way to live.
>

I was about to post something of that sort but you had already
done it :-).

Typically I do not post at all to places where someone is allowed
to delete/move/edit my posts in the way they can do at fora etc.
I have done it - and once I actively participated for a few years
in a forum (until they tampered with one of my posts)- but I avoid
doing it. Generally if I allow someone to mess with my output I'd
rather not do it for free, if that.

What facebook and twitter got right is exactly the feeling of not
being censored too much for the users I suppose, hence the success.
Not getting me on board though - I barely use my accounts.
I do use flickr though, hunting with the camera being my main
recreational activity....

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff, TGI             http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/

Les Cargill wrote:
> Don Y wrote:
>> On 1/3/2015 12:27 PM, Lanarcam wrote:
>>
>>> A few thoughts:
>>>
>>> Usenet gives more freedom and with that come advantages
>>> and disadvantages. There is a need for self-discipline,
>>> for respect of others based on their merits, for the
>>> search of the truth by debate and not that of victory
>>> by all means.
>>
>> Yes.  So, folks intent on the venue to exchange information
>> are left with a crappier S/N.
>>
>>> Usenet was born in another time when only a limited
>>> number of people could participate. There was selection
>>> based on education. All that has changed now, the Internet
>>> is everywhere for everybody. We could say that it has
>>> moved from the universities to the street.
>>>
>>> Corporate forums are a response, moderation prevents
>>> chaos but your freedom is restricted. You become
>>> dependant on an organisation that you don't control,
>>> you lose your independance. You lose for instance the
>>> right to criticize that organisation.
>>
>> Yes, as well.  The moderation tends to get a bit more heavy-handed;
>> BOfH-ish.
>>
>> OTOH, you can get "moderation" without corporate sponsorship.
>> But, the big (potential) win of corporate involvement is the
>> presence of "experts", hopefully (unless the firm assigns the
>> newbies to the task of "support")
>>
>> I see support "venues" (trying to avoid conflicting with "forum")
>> as having several different characteristics that drive their
>> overall utility.  In no particular order (some of these rely
>> on others -- but, IMO, merit being addressed explicitly):
>>
>> - Technology
>>    How is the venue implemented (mailing lists, web pages, SMS services,
>> etc.)?
>>    This has direct impact on many of the other issues (that follow)
> 
> NNTP is vastly superior to the rest for this.
> 
>> - Accessibility
>>    How readily can the content can be accessed (devices, media, etc.)?
>>    And, how well can it be *searched* for applicable content?
> 
> So use NNTP over port 80.
> 
>> - Push vs Pull
>>    Does the content come to you or do you go to it?  Mailing lists
>> being an
>>    example of the former; USENET the latter.
> 
> Pull is good.
> 
>> - Privacy
>>    How much privacy does the venue present its participants?  Do you have
>>    any idea/control as to who is "seeing" your posted content?  Can you
>>    limit your exposure?
> 
> Ha! Privacy is an absolute illusion.
> 
>> - "Richness" of content
>>    What sorts of media are supported?  E.g., USENET is effectively text
>> only
>>    while most "portal forums" support at least limited types of
>> multimedia.
> 
> Very bad. Text is good. Multimedia is a threat vector medium at the very
> least.
> 
> NNTP coupled with webpages should be enough.
> 
>> - Focus
>>    Is there an "effective" charter governing the venue's usage?  Or, does
>>    the content (topic and quality) wander aimlessly?
> 
> Doesn't matter. Focus is also overrated.
> 
>> - Control
>>    How is access controlled?  Content?  Is any form of moderation in
>> force
>>    and, if so, how (specific moderators, distributed moderation, etc.)?
> 
> There should be total anarchy. Control is an illusion ( unless
> all the poles are on the unit circle ).
> 
>> - Exploitability
>>    How susceptible is the venue to abuse (spam, etc.)?  How vulnerable
>> are the
>>    participants to that (unwanted) abuse?
> 
> Who cares? Become adept at filtering.
> 
>> - Cost
>>    Is there a cost associated with posting/reading content?  To
>> maintaining
>>    the service?
> 
> Pay for your NNTP link, then stop worrying. I feel for people trying to
> monetize fora, but not too much.
> 
>> - "Value"
>>    (Bad choice of terms)  Are the right people drawn to the venue to
>> address
>>    the subject matter covered in the charter?  (note that this applies to
>>    encouraging the participation of "experts" as well as NOT
>> discouraging the
>>    participation of neophytes)
>>
> 
> The best thing a neophyte can do is learn to ask good questions.
> 
>> I can go on, but I think this gives an indication of how multifaceted the
>> decision is.
> 
> Gated communities are no way to live.
> 

Amen to all of that.

I pay all of $13 (10 Euros) per year for the news server. For that I do
not need to run any kind of filtering because they already take care of
hosing off spam. When I still had AT&T I filtered out google mail and
that took care of most spam. It's easy.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Hi Dimiter,

On 1/4/2015 10:15 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

> I was about to post something of that sort but you had already
> done it :-).
>
> Typically I do not post at all to places where someone is allowed
> to delete/move/edit my posts in the way they can do at fora etc.
> I have done it - and once I actively participated for a few years
> in a forum (until they tampered with one of my posts)- but I avoid
> doing it. Generally if I allow someone to mess with my output I'd
> rather not do it for free, if that.

But that's not a *SUPPORT* forum.  Rather, it's a place where folks
gather to discuss a particular subject matter (electronics,
metalurgy, religion, etc.).  There are scant few newsgroups that
could marginally be considered "support groups":  notable exceptions
being the adobe.* groups and the various alt.*.os.* groups.  There
are a smattering of "autos" groups, and game consoles, etc.

But, you don't see an alt.tgi.netmce group  :>

I.e., do *you* sponsor/endorse any "venues" (mailing lists, newsgroups,
portals, etc.) for your customers to discuss problems/features with
your products?  If *not*, is this because there is no demand for it
(i.e., perhaps customers don't want to disclose publicly to others how
they are using your kit -- competition; or, perhaps, their needs are met
with one-on-one email/phone exchanges?)

Said another way, what sorts of "support venues" would you consider
appropriate for *your* products -- and *why* (esp why *not*!).

> What facebook and twitter got right is exactly the feeling of not
> being censored too much for the users I suppose, hence the success.
> Not getting me on board though - I barely use my accounts.
> I do use flickr though, hunting with the camera being my main
> recreational activity....

AFAICT, social media "venues" are advertising and griping opportunities.
I'd not place much stock in a "recommendation" (nor a *warning*) posted
on the like:  "Who is this guy and why should I take *his* comments
as Truth?"  (i.e., he may be an idiot and hence complaining about his own
ineptitude with the product; or, he may be a shill effectively pushing
a product for some other reason!)

Hi Don,

On 04.1.2015 г. 21:05, Don Y wrote:
> Hi Dimiter,
>
> On 1/4/2015 10:15 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>
>> I was about to post something of that sort but you had already
>> done it :-).
>>
>> Typically I do not post at all to places where someone is allowed
>> to delete/move/edit my posts in the way they can do at fora etc.
>> I have done it - and once I actively participated for a few years
>> in a forum (until they tampered with one of my posts)- but I avoid
>> doing it. Generally if I allow someone to mess with my output I'd
>> rather not do it for free, if that.
>
> But that's not a *SUPPORT* forum.

No, of course it is not.

>
> I.e., do *you* sponsor/endorse any "venues" (mailing lists, newsgroups,
> portals, etc.) for your customers to discuss problems/features with
> your products?  If *not*, is this because there is no demand for it
> (i.e., perhaps customers don't want to disclose publicly to others how
> they are using your kit -- competition; or, perhaps, their needs are met
> with one-on-one email/phone exchanges?)
>
> Said another way, what sorts of "support venues" would you consider
> appropriate for *your* products -- and *why* (esp why *not*!).

Our customers are not that many, I wish they were in the thousands so
I had to organize something like that. Then our devices are typically
used by end users, not developers - where the user manual tends to
do a good enough job. For the few cases when people have some issue
usually it can be resolved one on one over the net, being able to
see the *same* screen at both sides (the netMCA working over RFB/VNC)
makes things quite easy.

I did actually make a "TGI official twitter account" which is active
but remains unused. From time to time twitter email me with what
I might find interesting :D . I have a new tiny auxilary HV source
to announce, may be I'll use it for that - once its webpage is ready.

If I have to do a serious developer support group it would be
via a mailing list. Just let the people who actually have something
to do with it join, then leave the thing alone. Archive the messages
in a way convenient enough to access - what more does one need.
By controlling the population on the list one can afford to allow all
sorts of attachments etc. etc.

>
>> What facebook and twitter got right is exactly the feeling of not
>> being censored too much for the users I suppose, hence the success.
>> Not getting me on board though - I barely use my accounts.
>> I do use flickr though, hunting with the camera being my main
>> recreational activity....
>
> AFAICT, social media "venues" are advertising and griping opportunities.
> I'd not place much stock in a "recommendation" (nor a *warning*) posted
> on the like:  "Who is this guy and why should I take *his* comments
> as Truth?"  (i.e., he may be an idiot and hence complaining about his own
> ineptitude with the product; or, he may be a shill effectively pushing
> a product for some other reason!)

Well that's what they are generally used for but isn't that with
all mass media. Nothing should stop you from using a facebook or twitter
profile as a mailing list - if you have to not use a real mailing list,
that is.

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff, TGI             http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/

Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> On 04.1.2015 г. 00:26, Les Cargill wrote:
>> Don Y wrote:
>>> On 1/3/2015 12:27 PM, Lanarcam wrote:
>>>
>>>> A few thoughts:
>>>>
>>>> Usenet gives more freedom and with that come advantages
>>>> and disadvantages. There is a need for self-discipline,
>>>> for respect of others based on their merits, for the
>>>> search of the truth by debate and not that of victory
>>>> by all means.
>>>
>>> Yes.  So, folks intent on the venue to exchange information
>>> are left with a crappier S/N.
>>>
>>>> Usenet was born in another time when only a limited
>>>> number of people could participate. There was selection
>>>> based on education. All that has changed now, the Internet
>>>> is everywhere for everybody. We could say that it has
>>>> moved from the universities to the street.
>>>>
>>>> Corporate forums are a response, moderation prevents
>>>> chaos but your freedom is restricted. You become
>>>> dependant on an organisation that you don't control,
>>>> you lose your independance. You lose for instance the
>>>> right to criticize that organisation.
>>>
>>> Yes, as well.  The moderation tends to get a bit more heavy-handed;
>>> BOfH-ish.
>>>
>>> OTOH, you can get "moderation" without corporate sponsorship.
>>> But, the big (potential) win of corporate involvement is the
>>> presence of "experts", hopefully (unless the firm assigns the
>>> newbies to the task of "support")
>>>
>>> I see support "venues" (trying to avoid conflicting with "forum")
>>> as having several different characteristics that drive their
>>> overall utility.  In no particular order (some of these rely
>>> on others -- but, IMO, merit being addressed explicitly):
>>>
>>> - Technology
>>>    How is the venue implemented (mailing lists, web pages, SMS services,
>>> etc.)?
>>>    This has direct impact on many of the other issues (that follow)
>>
>> NNTP is vastly superior to the rest for this.
>>
>>> - Accessibility
>>>    How readily can the content can be accessed (devices, media, etc.)?
>>>    And, how well can it be *searched* for applicable content?
>>
>> So use NNTP over port 80.
>>
>>> - Push vs Pull
>>>    Does the content come to you or do you go to it?  Mailing lists
>>> being an
>>>    example of the former; USENET the latter.
>>
>> Pull is good.
>>
>>> - Privacy
>>>    How much privacy does the venue present its participants?  Do you
>>> have
>>>    any idea/control as to who is "seeing" your posted content?  Can you
>>>    limit your exposure?
>>
>> Ha! Privacy is an absolute illusion.
>>
>>> - "Richness" of content
>>>    What sorts of media are supported?  E.g., USENET is effectively text
>>> only
>>>    while most "portal forums" support at least limited types of
>>> multimedia.
>>
>> Very bad. Text is good. Multimedia is a threat vector medium at the very
>> least.
>>
>> NNTP coupled with webpages should be enough.
>>
>>> - Focus
>>>    Is there an "effective" charter governing the venue's usage?  Or,
>>> does
>>>    the content (topic and quality) wander aimlessly?
>>
>> Doesn't matter. Focus is also overrated.
>>
>>> - Control
>>>    How is access controlled?  Content?  Is any form of moderation in
>>> force
>>>    and, if so, how (specific moderators, distributed moderation, etc.)?
>>
>> There should be total anarchy. Control is an illusion ( unless
>> all the poles are on the unit circle ).
>>
>>> - Exploitability
>>>    How susceptible is the venue to abuse (spam, etc.)?  How vulnerable
>>> are the
>>>    participants to that (unwanted) abuse?
>>
>> Who cares? Become adept at filtering.
>>
>>> - Cost
>>>    Is there a cost associated with posting/reading content?  To
>>> maintaining
>>>    the service?
>>
>> Pay for your NNTP link, then stop worrying. I feel for people trying to
>> monetize fora, but not too much.
>>
>>> - "Value"
>>>    (Bad choice of terms)  Are the right people drawn to the venue to
>>> address
>>>    the subject matter covered in the charter?  (note that this
>>> applies to
>>>    encouraging the participation of "experts" as well as NOT
>>> discouraging the
>>>    participation of neophytes)
>>>
>>
>> The best thing a neophyte can do is learn to ask good questions.
>>
>>> I can go on, but I think this gives an indication of how multifaceted
>>> the
>>> decision is.
>>
>> Gated communities are no way to live.
>>
>
> I was about to post something of that sort but you had already
> done it :-).
>
> Typically I do not post at all to places where someone is allowed
> to delete/move/edit my posts in the way they can do at fora etc.
> I have done it - and once I actively participated for a few years
> in a forum (until they tampered with one of my posts)- but I avoid
> doing it. Generally if I allow someone to mess with my output I'd
> rather not do it for free, if that.
>
> What facebook and twitter got right is exactly the feeling of not
> being censored too much for the users I suppose, hence the success.


I have no idea. It's all content-free personal daily affirmation stuff, 
so far as I can tell.

Facebook was initially designed as an assortative mating site for 
Harvard kids.

> Not getting me on board though - I barely use my accounts.

I have kids on there and there are a few people who used to be on Usenet 
on there. That last part is fading.

Facebook might have replaced Usenet because of corporate traffic
filtering and port blocking. I dunno. Seems ridiculous that something
as bandwidth-inefficient as Facebook would be tolerable. I don't surf
at work so I don't know.

But in general, people have little or no use for actual
information.

> I do use flickr though, hunting with the camera being my main
> recreational activity....
>
> Dimiter
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Dimiter Popoff, TGI             http://www.tgi-sci.com
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/
>
>
-- 
Les Cargill

Hi Dimiter,

On 1/4/2015 12:55 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

>>> I was about to post something of that sort but you had already
>>> done it :-).
>>>
>>> Typically I do not post at all to places where someone is allowed
>>> to delete/move/edit my posts in the way they can do at fora etc.
>>> I have done it - and once I actively participated for a few years
>>> in a forum (until they tampered with one of my posts)- but I avoid
>>> doing it. Generally if I allow someone to mess with my output I'd
>>> rather not do it for free, if that.
>>
>> But that's not a *SUPPORT* forum.
>
> No, of course it is not.

No more than the local bar where the geeks (or bikers) hang out would
be considered a support forum (for whatever they opt to discuss, there)

>> I.e., do *you* sponsor/endorse any "venues" (mailing lists, newsgroups,
>> portals, etc.) for your customers to discuss problems/features with
>> your products?  If *not*, is this because there is no demand for it
>> (i.e., perhaps customers don't want to disclose publicly to others how
>> they are using your kit -- competition; or, perhaps, their needs are met
>> with one-on-one email/phone exchanges?)
>>
>> Said another way, what sorts of "support venues" would you consider
>> appropriate for *your* products -- and *why* (esp why *not*!).
>
> Our customers are not that many, I wish they were in the thousands so
> I had to organize something like that. Then our devices are typically
> used by end users, not developers - where the user manual tends to
> do a good enough job. For the few cases when people have some issue
> usually it can be resolved one on one over the net, being able to
> see the *same* screen at both sides (the netMCA working over RFB/VNC)
> makes things quite easy.

Understood.  I was *going* to conclude that the "quality" of user probably
plays a role in the extent to which "support" is required (wrt the level
of familiarity with the topics -- newbies can get by with folks who know
where the POWER switch is located!  :-/ ).

Along that line, I was thinking that more sophisticated users would tend to
need *less* support.  But, on second thought, this may not be true.  They
may need *different* (types of) support and their "problems/issues" may be
considerably more challenging -- e.g., asking the Instrument to do something
that it *could*, perhaps, do... but may not have originally been INTENDED
in the Instrument's design!  In that case, someone with first-hand experience
doing same *or* intimate knowledge of the Instrument would be needed to
advise.

> I did actually make a "TGI official twitter account" which is active
> but remains unused. From time to time twitter email me with what
> I might find interesting :D . I have a new tiny auxilary HV source
> to announce, may be I'll use it for that - once its webpage is ready.

And that's along the lines of my "advertising" comment.

You could *conceivably* use it to announce an upgrade (software).
Or, alert vigilant users to a nasty bug that they might want to
catch before it screws them over.  Folks who aren't actively tracking
your "posts" (tweets) have self-selected themselves OUT of that pool.

> If I have to do a serious developer support group it would be
> via a mailing list. Just let the people who actually have something
> to do with it join, then leave the thing alone. Archive the messages
> in a way convenient enough to access - what more does one need.
> By controlling the population on the list one can afford to allow all
> sorts of attachments etc. etc.

Exactly.  That was my original thinking.

But, I've received some feedback suggesting some folks are grumbling
about the format/medium.  Turns out, they check their email on their
*phones* and it's really not convenient for viewing certain types of
"non text".

So, eliminate those media types?  <shrug> and tell the users to use a
real mail client?  Extract the attachments and post them on a web site
(but, then someone has to own/maintain that site!) using just URL's
in the mail messages (I think this is clumsy for folks who are actually
interested in the content as it adds another step to the UX).

The big advantage of a mailing list is that you can "run" it (as in
"implement it") damn near anywhere!  Even *on* a phone, if you want.
Web portals require a fixed server, ownership, maintenance, etc.
That suggests costs to operate that would encourage sponsorship
(censorship?) and advertisement...  :<

Back to my "year end" upgrades/discards.  Still have another couple of
carloads of stuff to get out of here...  cripes, I *know* we don't have
a basement (nor an attic!), yet the stuff just seems to be without end!!

Keep warm.  We harvested the Navel oranges a few days ago (weather turned
cold enough to put the fruit at jeopardy).  Thankfully (?) a small crop
(in terms of NUMBERS).  But, they're all *huge* -- at least a pound (500g)
each!  So, they effectively take up a lot of space regardless...

--don

On 2015-01-03, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With the obsolescence of USENET in favor of more "portal-based" forums,
> what are the relative advantages/disadvantages of corporate-sponsored
> (and hosted?) forums vs. more "independent" approaches?  I've seen
> good (and bad) examples of each and can only conclude that the "players"
> are the deciding factor (?)

I've been playing on stack exchange which is user modrated, 
and strictly problem-solution focussed, so there's little scope
for bragging, discussing politics, cycling, cooking, or 
conspiracy (unless on-topic). they have an electronics forum 
which seems to have be mostly at the sci.electronics.basics 
level, although there are some interesting problems.

-- 
umop apisdn

On 04.1.2015 г. 23:03, Don Y wrote:
> Hi Dimiter,
>
> On 1/4/2015 12:55 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>
>>>> I was about to post something of that sort but you had already
>>>> done it :-).
>>>>
>>>> Typically I do not post at all to places where someone is allowed
>>>> to delete/move/edit my posts in the way they can do at fora etc.
>>>> I have done it - and once I actively participated for a few years
>>>> in a forum (until they tampered with one of my posts)- but I avoid
>>>> doing it. Generally if I allow someone to mess with my output I'd
>>>> rather not do it for free, if that.
>>>
>>> But that's not a *SUPPORT* forum.
>>
>> No, of course it is not.
>
> No more than the local bar where the geeks (or bikers) hang out would
> be considered a support forum (for whatever they opt to discuss, there)

Uhm, with some luck you might get there what you have been chasing
in vain for years... :-).

>
>>> I.e., do *you* sponsor/endorse any "venues" (mailing lists, newsgroups,
>>> portals, etc.) for your customers to discuss problems/features with
>>> your products?  If *not*, is this because there is no demand for it
>>> (i.e., perhaps customers don't want to disclose publicly to others how
>>> they are using your kit -- competition; or, perhaps, their needs are met
>>> with one-on-one email/phone exchanges?)
>>>
>>> Said another way, what sorts of "support venues" would you consider
>>> appropriate for *your* products -- and *why* (esp why *not*!).
>>
>> Our customers are not that many, I wish they were in the thousands so
>> I had to organize something like that. Then our devices are typically
>> used by end users, not developers - where the user manual tends to
>> do a good enough job. For the few cases when people have some issue
>> usually it can be resolved one on one over the net, being able to
>> see the *same* screen at both sides (the netMCA working over RFB/VNC)
>> makes things quite easy.
>
> Understood.  I was *going* to conclude that the "quality" of user probably
> plays a role in the extent to which "support" is required (wrt the level
> of familiarity with the topics -- newbies can get by with folks who know
> where the POWER switch is located!  :-/ ).

The quality of our users is typically fairly high, those are people
who have been dealing with systems a lot less friendly than ours.
Some (many?) of them have no basic networking knowledge so the
main obstacle we had initially was until their unit would come
online..... Since we started to supply a router with it,
prepared such they could have a "quick start" - just plug things
and have them running (e.g. the router would assign their device
a known IP address, would forward ports it has to forward so
whatever server part on the device is running will be accessible
from the outside etc.) this problem largely disappeared.

> ....
>> If I have to do a serious developer support group it would be
>> via a mailing list. Just let the people who actually have something
>> to do with it join, then leave the thing alone. Archive the messages
>> in a way convenient enough to access - what more does one need.
>> By controlling the population on the list one can afford to allow all
>> sorts of attachments etc. etc.
>
> Exactly.  That was my original thinking.
>
> But, I've received some feedback suggesting some folks are grumbling
> about the format/medium.  Turns out, they check their email on their
> *phones* and it's really not convenient for viewing certain types of
> "non text".

Oh come on, this is a non-issue. If the browser on a phone cannot deal
with what is going to be posted on the list then what will they use.
Have them use a webmail client if whatever else is not working and be
done with it, nobody needs all sorts of formats known to humanity
in one place to provide technical support. GIF, JPEG, PDF, text,
html - they will be able to view this right away on practically
everything, just the amount of swearing it will take will vary
between platforms (sometimes dramatically, you should see me using
the cheap android tablet I have for bed use....).
The rest can go as application/octet-stream, would go this way
whatever format you choose anyway.

 >...
> Keep warm.  We harvested the Navel oranges a few days ago (weather turned
> cold enough to put the fruit at jeopardy).  Thankfully (?) a small crop
> (in terms of NUMBERS).  But, they're all *huge* -- at least a pound (500g)
> each!  So, they effectively take up a lot of space regardless...

Whoa, half a ton oranges :D :D (well, kilogram but sounds pretty huge
to me :-) ).
We had just a few apples this year - the apple trees (here at least)
give plenty of apples every other year only. So we left the few apples
untouched, some are still on the tree - and they did find some good use:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/15978604306/

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff, TGI             http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/





>
> --don

On 03/01/2015 19:04, Don Y wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With the obsolescence of USENET in favor of more "portal-based" forums,

On the plus side significantly better SNR and moderation to keep the 
whole thing on topic. Experts that have been driven away from Usenet 
still reside in various specialist forums or mailing lists.

On the minus side you end up with yet another password and userid for 
each and every forum and you have to remember to go and look at it.

> what are the relative advantages/disadvantages of corporate-sponsored
> (and hosted?) forums vs. more "independent" approaches?  I've seen

Disadvantage of corporate sponsored ones is that posts criticising 
defects in their products won't appear or if they do won't last long.

> good (and bad) examples of each and can only conclude that the "players"
> are the deciding factor (?)

There have to be enough people reading it for it to work at all.

-- 
Regards,
Martin Brown

Hi Dimiter,

On 1/4/2015 5:35 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

[attrs elided]

>>>> Said another way, what sorts of "support venues" would you consider
>>>> appropriate for *your* products -- and *why* (esp why *not*!).
>>>
>>> Our customers are not that many, I wish they were in the thousands so
>>> I had to organize something like that. Then our devices are typically
>>> used by end users, not developers - where the user manual tends to
>>> do a good enough job. For the few cases when people have some issue
>>> usually it can be resolved one on one over the net, being able to
>>> see the *same* screen at both sides (the netMCA working over RFB/VNC)
>>> makes things quite easy.
>>
>> Understood.  I was *going* to conclude that the "quality" of user probably
>> plays a role in the extent to which "support" is required (wrt the level
>> of familiarity with the topics -- newbies can get by with folks who know
>> where the POWER switch is located!  :-/ ).
>
> The quality of our users is typically fairly high, those are people
> who have been dealing with systems a lot less friendly than ours.
> Some (many?) of them have no basic networking knowledge so the
> main obstacle we had initially was until their unit would come
> online..... Since we started to supply a router with it,
> prepared such they could have a "quick start" - just plug things
> and have them running (e.g. the router would assign their device
> a known IP address, would forward ports it has to forward so
> whatever server part on the device is running will be accessible
> from the outside etc.) this problem largely disappeared.

Makes sense.  The effort (on your part) to provide that "up front"
is probably saved many times over vs. trying to talk them through the
process when they have problems.

When they ultimately contact you for an issue, is it something that
you can quickly resolve:
     "Click here, type this in there, then set the detector..."
or is it a "problem solving" experience for you, as well?

>>> If I have to do a serious developer support group it would be
>>> via a mailing list. Just let the people who actually have something
>>> to do with it join, then leave the thing alone. Archive the messages
>>> in a way convenient enough to access - what more does one need.
>>> By controlling the population on the list one can afford to allow all
>>> sorts of attachments etc. etc.
>>
>> Exactly.  That was my original thinking.
>>
>> But, I've received some feedback suggesting some folks are grumbling
>> about the format/medium.  Turns out, they check their email on their
>> *phones* and it's really not convenient for viewing certain types of
>> "non text".
>
> Oh come on, this is a non-issue. If the browser on a phone cannot deal
> with what is going to be posted on the list then what will they use.

Agreed.  I suspect there is some other motivation for pestering me
about this (perhaps trying to drag me back onto the payroll?).

I've declined to take on the work.  As a "compromise", decided to put
together a summary of OTHER options they have to address their support
desires.  But, mailing lists are the only "cheap" solution (doesn't
require setting up a server or maintaining a portal, etc.).

So, more "corporate involvement".  Hence my question re: more direct
corporate involvement in that "forum"...

> Have them use a webmail client if whatever else is not working and be
> done with it, nobody needs all sorts of formats known to humanity
> in one place to provide technical support. GIF, JPEG, PDF, text,
> html - they will be able to view this right away on practically
> everything, just the amount of swearing it will take will vary
> between platforms (sometimes dramatically, you should see me using
> the cheap android tablet I have for bed use....).
> The rest can go as application/octet-stream, would go this way
> whatever format you choose anyway.

Current implementation is reasonably clever.  E.g., I resample JPEG
attachments to ensure they're a more manageable size (easier than having
to educate everyone who submits them to do this; *or*, reject too
many messages because of 10MB JPEG attachments, etc.).  This saves the
folks who submit them from having to take that deliberate step before
posting... (and cuts down on grumbling from folks who have to "pay"
to receive huge "irrelevant" pictures).

>> Keep warm.  We harvested the Navel oranges a few days ago (weather turned
>> cold enough to put the fruit at jeopardy).  Thankfully (?) a small crop
>> (in terms of NUMBERS).  But, they're all *huge* -- at least a pound (500g)
>> each!  So, they effectively take up a lot of space regardless...
>
> Whoa, half a ton oranges :D :D (well, kilogram but sounds pretty huge
> to me :-) ).

Yeah, they're pretty big.  Lemons were big as well -- 60 pounds off the
little 3 ft tree!  No idea what we'll do with all the juice when it
"grows up"!

> We had just a few apples this year - the apple trees (here at least)
> give plenty of apples every other year only. So we left the few apples
> untouched, some are still on the tree - and they did find some good use:

Sadly, not cold enough for apples, here.  And, the variety that I like
is not sold in stores (apparently doesn't travel well).

Keep warm!  :>